Port of Corpus Christi officials celebrate completion of Ship Channel Improvement Project
The navigational project increases the depth of the ship channel from 47 feet to 54 feet and widens it from 400 feet to 530 feet to allow large draft vessels to navigate the passage. It also adds barge shelves to the outside of the channel to provide for a safer trip for barges and ships.
Port officials say it will expand capacity to export crude oil, liquefied natural gas and other commodities at a less expensive rate by allowing larger vessels such as Very Large Crude Carriers to move through the channel. The expansion will result in fewer ships transporting more cargo, saving about $200 million in annual transportation costs, said Kent Britton, the Port of Corpus Christi CEO.
'This is probably the most significant thing the port has done,' he said. 'When I got here, we'd started saying we were the energy port of America. I was new to the port and new to the port industry and thought that was a pretty bold statement.
'When you see what's happened in the succeeding eight years, it truly is humbling, and it's humbling to be able to lead this organization,' he said.
The ceremony on June 2 marked the culmination of about 35 years' effort on the major infrastructure project, which began when the U.S. Congress first authorized a study to look at the possibility of dredging the ship channel. Congress authorized the project some 17 years later at the proposed depth.
The port obtained first-dollar funding for the project in 2018, three years after Congress passed legislation lifting a ban on crude oil exports.
Phase 1 entailed digging the channel from the Gulf of Mexico, since renamed by the U.S. government as Gulf of America, to Harbor Island. With funding for Phase 2, the port continued to dredge from Harbor Island to west of the La Quinta Junction, followed by Phase 3, which dredged the channel west of the La Quinta junction to Chemical TB.
The latest phase deepens and widens the channel from Chemical TB to Viola TB and is expected to end in the second quarter of 2025, although additional maintenance and dredging will follow to ensure there is no shoaling and to ensure the entire channel has been deepened to 54 feet, according to port officials.
For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which entered into a project partnership agreement with the Port of Corpus Christi in 2017 to share project costs, the ceremony was an opportunity to witness the result of years of partnerships with stakeholders who helped design, engineer and fund the channel project.
The corps contributed about $450 million of the $625 million investment, and the port made a $180 million capital contribution, port officials said.
Under the leadership of the port commission, the port has invested about $1 billion in the last 10 years to build new infrastructure to benefit the region and open up the port for customers.
The ceremony on June 2 is the second event that the port has organized in the last several months in anticipation of the completion of the Ship Channel Improvement Project.
Port officials and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn attended a town hall in late March to discuss the importance of the project and the role of its export capacity in strengthening trade and American energy dominance.
With the lift of the ban on crude oil exports, the port began shipping large volumes of oil through the channel, advancing it from exporting less than 100,000 barrels per day in the first year after the ban was lifted to 2.4 million barrels last year.
The port's proximity to Eagle Ford Shale and the Permian Basin, major oil production fields, has helped attract $65 billion in investments to the Coastal Bend over the last decade, according to a news release issued by the Port of Corpus Christi. Port customers and port-related activities generate about 95,000 jobs, the news release said.
During the ceremony on June 2, Omar Garcia, the chief external affairs officer for the Port of Corpus Christi, said the new 54-foot depth is already providing opportunities for economic growth, which translates into more community investments and new jobs.
'When I arrived at the Port of Corpus Christi in the fall of 2018, this gateway was the nation's fourth-largest port in total waterborne tonnage,' he said.
Today, the port is the largest crude oil exporter in the U.S. and the third-largest in the world, with only Saudi Arabia and Iraq exporting more crude oil, he said.
With the project's fourth phase nearing conclusion, port officials and city leaders thanked current and past commissioners for their efforts to secure project funding by traveling to Washington, D.C., to meet with representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the congressional budget office.
He thanked Solomon P. Ortiz, a congressman representing Corpus Christi in 1990, for persuading Congress to authorize the feasibility study through the Water Resources Development Act.
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat serving on the House Appropriations Committee, spoke at the ceremony about working with U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, a Republican on the committee, to obtain $157 million in fiscal year 2023 to launch and finish the final phase of the project.
'From energy exports to military activity, from small businesses to global markets, this port connects South Texas to the rest of the world,' he said. 'With the $625 million channel improvement project completed, we are ready to lead the world into the next generation of trade.'
More: The Port of Corpus Christi may abandon a desalination permit. Here's why.
More: Permit approved for Corpus Christi Ship Channel dredging project
This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Port of Corpus Christi officials celebrate channel deepening project
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting
SACRAMENTO — California's push to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort. California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress. In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort. In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature. The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as 'gut and amend,' where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal. The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court's intervention, the state could enact 'significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,' according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon. Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters. 'When I go to a restaurant, I don't need to meet the chef,' said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission's work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday. If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4. On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges. After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis). 'I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,' Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours. Tangipa and the committee's vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort. Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation. 'That's insanity, and that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,' Tangipa said. 'How can you say you actually care about the people of California? Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long. In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented. Tom Willis, Newsom's campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was 'publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.' But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn't answer, because he 'wasn't a part of that process.' In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt. 'This is a partisan gerrymander,' she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. 'That's what we're talking about here.' Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, 'It made me salivate.' California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state's independent redistricting rules because they would not 'call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.' But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill. 'it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,' the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. 'These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.'
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Trump could throw a ‘wrench' into Hill funding negotiations as shutdown looms
President Donald Trump's budget director has talked about attempting the ultimate override of Congress' funding prerogatives during the final 45 days of the fiscal year — and that time is now. With six weeks left until Oct. 1, lawmakers are staring down a government shutdown deadline alongside the threat of a 'pocket rescission,' a controversial White House tactic to cancel federal cash without the consent of Congress. It's also a ploy that the government's top watchdog, along with key lawmakers from both parties, say is illegal. 'The money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' White House budget chief Russ Vought said last month in defense of the gambit, adding it has 'been used before.' Lawmakers anticipate Trump will send Congress a formal rescissions request to claw back billions of dollars in federal funding as soon as lawmakers return from recess in September. Already, the threat of the White House then unilaterally canceling the funding in October — regardless of Congress' response to the request — is straining negotiations between Democrats and Republicans desperately trying to head off a shutdown with bipartisan negotiations, which Vought is also actively seeking to undermine. 'He is trying to throw a wrench in this by introducing or sending to us a second rescission bill — by trying to do pocket rescissions,' Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, the top Democrat on the appropriations panel that funds the military, said of Vought in an interview. It also would undoubtedly throw Republicans into another politically dicey balancing act of trying not to buck their president while answering to constituents who are feeling the effects of the administration's mass gutting of widely used government programs. Congress cleared an initial rescissions package of $9 billion in cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid in July. The White House has stayed publicly mum on what sort of programming it would seek to slash next, but officials have previously signaled the Department of Education will be the target of a second package, which could align with Trump's controversial goal of eventually eliminating the agency altogether. As for the size of this upcoming clawbacks request, Republicans have mixed predictions. Last month, Speaker Mike Johnson told members that a second package would be less than the $9 billion, but other GOP lawmakers said they expect to be asked to revoke much more money than that. Under decades-old budget law, the White House is allowed to send Congress a rescissions request and then withhold the cash for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore the proposal. If lawmakers don't pass the rescissions bill, the administration must spend the money as Congress intended. These were the conditions under which the administration transmitted its most recent plan. Now, with less than 45 days before the current fiscal year comes to a close, top Trump administration officials argue the White House can send another rescissions package and then treat the funding as expired come midnight on Sept. 30 — regardless of congressional action. And if the White House moves forward with the plan, it could do more than just cause political headaches. It very likely would kick off a high-stakes legal battle over Congress' funding power and whether a presidential administration must spend all of the money prescribed by law or whether the spending levels are simply 'a ceiling,' as Vought has contended. The Government Accountability Office has said repeatedly that pocket rescissions are against the law and would 'cede Congress's power of the purse by allowing a president to, in effect, change the law by shortening the period of availability for fixed-period funds.' Vought has taken aim at the watchdog, and Mark Paoletta, the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, piled on this month. 'Trump Derangement Syndrome is on full display' at GAO, Paoletta said on social media, and 'wrong on pocket rescissions.' 'Congress is well aware' that the law allows the maneuver, he added, pointing out that lawmakers did not bother heeding GAO's urging 50 years ago to fix a loophole leaving the legality question open to interpretation. Yet even some of the Republican lawmakers who are hungry for more chances to kill funding are wary of the Trump administration using the rescissions process to undermine Congress' funding power under Article I of the Constitution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who reluctantly voted in support of the rescissions request last month, said he won't support more clawback packages if the White House doesn't provide account-by-account details of how the funding would be cut. 'I'm just not going to aid and abet moving appropriations decisions over to the Article II branch,' Tillis said in an interview. Trump 'just happens to be a Republican,' Tillis continued, but 'we could regret this, just as Democrats would, if they are tempted to do the same thing. That's why you've got to draw lines here institutionally.' Concerns about precedent, legality and political appetite are converging on the reality for members of both parties that Republicans can't afford to alienate Democrats, whose votes they likely need to pass any government funding bill to avoid a shutdown next month. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, when asked about a second rescissions package, stressed he would prefer to handle any more cuts through the regular appropriations process. 'My hope would be that that's the way we deal with a lot of these issues,' he said. Democrats hope so too, and they have warned that any Trump administration effort to claw back money already approved by Congress — 'pocket' or otherwise — would undermine lawmakers' ability to work across party lines to avoid a shutdown. In remarks late last month alongside House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his party's senior appropriators, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would try to reach a compromise with Republicans despite GOP lawmakers' approval of the latest $9 billion rescissions package. But, he added, 'Republicans are making it extremely difficult to do that … by talking about rescissions, pocket rescissions, impoundment — which would undo anything that we did in the budgets.'
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dem strategist expects Brown's U.S. Senate campaign to focus on Ohio workers
Former Ohio U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (Photo from Brown's website.) Former Ohio U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown is back, officially announcing on Monday his long-anticipated campaign to reclaim a seat in Congress. Ohio Republicans are ready to fight. 'I didn't plan to run for office again, but when I see what's going on, I know I can do something about it for Ohio,' Brown said in his announcement. 'That's why I'm running for Senate. Because even in these challenging times, I still believe if you stand up for workers, treat people with respect and always fight for Ohio, you can actually make a difference.' Brown, who lost his seat in 2024 to Sen. Bernie Moreno, is returning to the political spotlight, and the stakes are high. 'Ohio could very well be the tipping point state for the entire Senate,' said Ohio Democratic strategist David Pepper. Ohio Democratic Party members, including Pepper, say that the senator's history of supporting workers will be key to his campaign. 'I think Sherrod's message, which really gets sort of the wherewithal of every Ohio family in a time where people are really struggling and stressed, I think it's gonna really hit home,' Pepper said. He will face off against Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, whom President Donald Trump and the rest of the Ohio GOP, like party leader Tony Schroeder, are backing. 'Senator Husted's devotion to the conservative values that we just got done voting for, for President Trump last November, are going to wind up carrying the day,' Schroeder said. Husted was appointed to his role by Gov. Mike DeWine this January and has already raised $6 million. 'We just got done telling Senator Brown that we didn't want him to represent us in D.C. anymore, and we're about to do it again,' Schroeder said. 'He's carried every bit of the woke agenda in D.C. — the open border was a huge issue in Ohio, absolutely huge, and he voted for all of it.' Brown's campaign has already begun targeting Husted for his votes to make massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Husted's team sent us this statement from spokesperson Tyson Shepard: 'Sherrod Brown's recent announcement means Ohioans will face a clear choice in 2026. For 30 years, he has imposed Washington's problems on Ohio, pushing radical liberal policies that have left a lasting burden on the next generation. Jon Husted offers the opposite approach, applying Ohio's values and solutions to fix a broken Washington. The challenges our nation faces are the same ones Husted has helped our state confront and overcome, championing the values he learned growing up in northwest Ohio: hard work, personal responsibility, family, faith, freedom and patriotism.' Even though Brown over-performed Democrats all over the country, including Kamala Harris by eight points in Ohio, he lost by four points to Moreno. Pepper was asked about Brown's 2024 loss and how he fixes it for 2026. 'I mean it's a combination of things,' Pepper said. 'if you ever lose, you don't say, 'Well, we should do everything the same.' Of course, the Trump turnout mattered. We clearly have to do better in our cities.' Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
